Revenue sharing is simpler in the NFL because each team starts of with a check for $125 million. While bigger market teams probably kick in a big check to the pot, its not a high % of revenue. NFL teams in good markets make money on so many levels. The Giants or Cowboys kicking in say $20 million is not a huge chunk of their revenues and they can do it easily.

I imagine a few NHL teams putting even $5 million into the pot but would be a huge deal.

I do agree though that revenue sharing is key to competitive balance. I think if the NHL just lowered the % of money to the players and somehow worked that into a lower cap ceiling (closing the ceiling/floor gap) and giving the smaller market teams just a bit bigger of a revenue sharing taste it would do wonders.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:Revenue sharing is simpler in the NFL because each team starts of with a check for $125 million. While bigger market teams probably kick in a big check to the pot, its not a high % of revenue. NFL teams in good markets make money on so many levels. The Giants or Cowboys kicking in say $20 million is not a huge chunk of their revenues and they can do it easily.

I imagine a few NHL teams putting even $5 million into the pot but would be a huge deal.

I do agree though that revenue sharing is key to competitive balance. I think if the NHL just lowered the % of money to the players and somehow worked that into a lower cap ceiling (closing the ceiling/floor gap) and giving the smaller market teams just a bit bigger of a revenue sharing taste it would do wonders.

The biggest difference between the NFL and all other sports is that by playing one game a week, almost all of their TV money is on a League-wide contract. In all other sports, the League-wide deals are smaller than what most teams achieve individually. It's simply a lot easier to divide up "our money" than it is "my money".

MRandall25 wrote:I'm hoping the NHL penalizes the Flyers for that Pronger contract.

I don't see how the NHL can force a major cap downturn and not deal with the "hidden" contracts at the same time.If their goal is to limit expenditures, the loopholes for bad contracts have to be addressed...it's in their interest, in the long run.

DelPen wrote:I'd laugh if they lower the cap and teams need to buy out players at full price to not have it count against future caps.

I'm also hoping to see a Wade Redden Rule, some of that contract should be counted towards the Rags Cap, not hidden in the AHL.

Multiple solutions that could benefit both sides:

- All one-way contracts that are sent to the minors are subject to a 50/50 split (as with re-entry waivers). Any player on a one-way that's sent down could be claimed and the remainder of the salary and cap hit is split between the two clubs.

- Any "big market" team that stashes a player like Redden in the minors must contribute half of his remaining contract into the revenue sharing pot. i.e. if the Penguins sent down Paul Martin with 3 years, $15 million left on his contract. The Penguins are to pay $7.5 million over three years into the revenue sharing pool for the lowest-third teams, or lowest-half teams.

Many other solutions available, it's just a matter of what's agreeable to both parties...

5 weeks doesn't sound like enough time to work out all the big ticket items. Even when thoes items are done it takes weeks to iron out the wrinkles and dot it i's and cross the t's. I will be really intrested to hear the players counter offer to see how far they really are off.

no name wrote:5 weeks doesn't sound like enough time to work out all the big ticket items. Even when thoes items are done it takes weeks to iron out the wrinkles and dot it i's and cross the t's. I will be really intrested to hear the players counter offer to see how far they really are off.

True, but if they have a deal in principle, I can see the owners allowing camp/pre-/season to proceed while those details are worked out.

I think you've got it backwards. The dollar is not worth more, but less. What you probably mean is that it takes $1.19 to buy what $1.00 bought in '04, which would mean that the dollar is worth LESS now than in '04.

I think you've got it backwards. The dollar is not worth more, but less. What you probably mean is that it takes $1.19 to buy what $1.00 bought in '04, which would mean that the dollar is worth LESS now than in '04.

BEPF

Yep. The trick to beating it, or at least minimizing it, is to change your market basket wherever possible.